Those principles only apply to the quantum level, though. Once you reach 100 molecules or so, you don't need to worry about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and normalization itself becomes silly. As far as calling the electrons in the rock identical, that's a matter of considering the bonding (since identical fermions can't have the same spin in the same space, e.g. shells).

Ah, i see i see. I'm still fairly new at quantum physics. Still learning.

But i'm pretty sure when the rock isn't observed it's still in a different form. I know it isn't free particles, but it still takes a wavelike structure just like everything else. I've been reading this, so help me if i'm misinterpreting it.

Everything has a wave function but it doesn't necessarily behave like the wave functions of much smaller particles. If you want a good source on Quantum Mechanics, get a copy of Griffiths 2nd Edition of 'Introduction to Quantum Mechanics'. It will better help you understand the principles of Quantum.

No, I think that's silly. The universe existed before conscious life and trying to apply principles of quantum physics (observation creates order) to levels of reality that operate under different principles entirely is bunk.

It does, but only at the quantum level. The double slit experiment proved super position, but not for anything much bigger than electrons. You can measure the momentum and position of any classical particle simultaneously and not worry about breaking math.

Ah alright. Well i've always personally believed that reality is at least partially based on consciousnesses. I don't think things exist in their present form in the same way when not observed. That's just me though, i like theories that follow that more. They make more sense to me.

Well nothing is 100% solid. some physicists think all quantum reality theories are untrue, and only use it for the math. This is one of many possibilities. But strictly speaking, yes, observation can change outcomes of some reactions. We know this for sure.